Thursday, June 22, 2017

I had a disturbing encounter this evening with a person who mistook one of my comments. This person was a conservative, someone who knew nothing about me and the fact that I have written on the dangers of radical Islam for over a decade, extensively, under a pen name.

In response to a call from someone to ban the Muslim advocacy organization CAIR (Center for Arab-Islamic Relations), I had suggested that banning wasn't the answer, since banning organizations starts us down a dangerous road, as Americans. The conservative in question jumped on me, shrieking that I was defending an organization of "pedophiles" who believe in beheadings and female genital mutilation. When I explained that they had in fact misunderstood my tweet, they screamed that I was being condescending and repeated the accusation that I was defending the likes of CAIR. It got me thinking about something that has become more and more disturbing as the country's political stances grow further apart, and the rhetoric gets hotter and hotter. There seems to be a trend amongst young people - with the best of intentions - to "ban" anything they don't agree with. We have to ban organizations, ban houses of religion, ban publications (the Koran), ban even ideas. These people are the product of an educational system that has failed to help them understand why our First Amendment exists, and specifically what it protects. Furthermore, they seem to have no comprehension of a world where we have tossed that most important amendment away. Out of this zeal to ban what we don't like, rises movements like the current Antifa movement and its droves of indoctrinated, wide-eyed and loud-mouthed eighteen year olds, who storm the buildings and auditoriums hosting conservative speakers at college campuses. For two years, those of us who do understand the value of the First Amendment have cringed to watch these incidents, and grown nauseous at each failure of school administrations to stop it. This casual determination to allow the silencing of speech - and thus ideas - is terribly dangerous to our entire way of life. But how do you communicate that to an entire generation that never learned the concept of freedom of expression? They have grown up free to speak their minds - they never had to pause to question that ability. Worse, they have never had to stop and consider the real potential evil of forcibly taking it from another person.It was a small light in this dark, turbulent political night we have been living in, when this week the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against censorship of freedom of expression, stating that no right exists to prevent another person or entity from using a brand name that others may find offensive. Apparently, a pop band made of Asian musicians, which calls itself "Slant" was sued by some social justice warriors who just had to point out that the name could be interpreted as a racial slur; they appointed themselves the PC police and took the poor kids in the band to court, with the attempt of actually forcing them to change their name - something the band has stated they use with a sense of pride. (But never mind how the people with the slanted eyes actually feel about it. What has that to do with anything, in this world where we must correct others for thinking the wrong thoughts?) The ruling of SCOTUS is an enormous pro-First Amendment statement. The owners of the Washington Redskins, to name just one nervous entity - not to mention their many fans - are breathing a hopeful sigh of relief. This is not about allowing anyone to be insulted. It isn't about supporting an offensive slur, gesture, or book. What it is about is freedom and respect. It's about giving each other the respect to back off and allow another to decide what is right and wrong for them; it's saying that we cannot appoint ourselves to be the thought monitors of other people.I have been more than a little disturbed by the public celebrating this past week when a conservative journalist, Laura Loomer, rushed the stage at a Central Park, Shakespeare in the Park performance of Julius Caesar in which the lead character is a Trump lookalike, and of course undergoes the inevitable assassination. Conservative talk show hosts were cheering Loomer right and left, for standing up for civility. But from where I stand, she was simply lowering herself to the same tactics the Left has been using for two years, and somehow doesn't understand the hypocrisy. In this political climate, it's always going to be the other side who is wrong. It's always their hypocrisy when they perform exactly the same act that we ourselves might feel morally justified in doing. That's why it is so imperative that we hold ourselves to a higher standard. The problem is, we lose all legitimacy to complain about protesters interrupting conservative speakers the next time that happens, when today we applaud the likes of Laura Loomer, who did exactly the same thing. Remember, the 1st Amendment doesn't exist to protect speech we like, it exists to protect the most vile of speech. If we start censoring this thing... why not that thing, and the next and next? Then it gets very messy, because the question becomes - who decides what speech is going to be acceptable? The Left? The Right? No... THE GOVERNMENT. And then there we are, in Big Brother territory. We just can't condone the actions of Loomer, if we want to stand for Freedom. It's true that the First Amendment comes with exceptions - but these are inevitably exceptions that have to do with imminent public safety - never with censoring ideas. Never. Some might argue that when the protected speech has to do with killing our president, it's gone too far. There have been cries of "inciting violence" - a totally inaccurate application of that legal concept (the violence in "inciting violence" must be under very specific conditions, and it must present immediate public danger). But actually we have already said as a nation - through previous rulings of the Supreme Court - it hasn't gone too far. We allow for example the burning of a flag - an act that so many of us find so vile and heartrending that it is almost beyond words. But because it doesn't pose immediate public threat, it is protected expression. We have decided as a nation, that the expression of a passionate political idea - no matter how disgusting - is more important than is stopping the expression of that which some may find objectionable.Laura Loomer is wrong. If she wishes to complain about students banning conservative speech on campuses, she must allow a Julius Caesar Trump, and furthermore she should allow the audience the respect to view the play and make up their own minds. (It is worth noting that the play's entire theme is anti-assassination and anti-violence; the assassination scene is intentionally performed as tragic and emotionally alarming). And those who want CAIR banned are wrong. CAIR is suspected to be a funder of Hamas, and has been declared a terrorist organization by Saudi Arabia. But in this country - where we don't regulate the thoughts of citizens - and where CAIR has yet to commit a violent act - we don't ban organizations for their ideologies. We have to start correcting our younger generations when they talk about "banning" what they don't agree with. Our forefathers - and in cases like my father, our ancestors - shed their very blood for the idea that a person should be free to express themselves politically as they choose. We can't let these commitments to the First Amendment change, if we want to remain America.

If you read Gentlemen's Game, please drop me a note to tell me if you liked it!

DESCRIPTION:

When young playwright Greyson Foster agrees to attend a party at the penthouse of a millionaire, he has no idea how profoundly it will change his life. His journey will take him into spaces in his mind he never knew existed, bring him face-to-face with needs he never knew he had, and challenge him to travel to the precipice of lust, revenge, and love. From their first meeting, the powerful and charismatic Jack Miles weaves an enticing web around Greyson, drawing him into the dangerous game three millionaires play in secret. But Jack's personal life is complicated and his demons are many, and as they strengthen they threaten to destroy all that Jack holds dear - including Greyson.

"Thank you for sharing this wonderful story with us....I will truly miss these characters. I really do think about this story all the time - replaying parts over, thinking about the characters feelings and struggles. I will definitely be re-reading this again. Thank you!!!!"

"This story is deep, meaningful, addicting, flawless."

Search This Blog

Newest Reviews for "Gentlemen's Game"

From writer Ross McCoubrey 5/5 stars: "Really enjoyed this very different novel that doesn't fall easily into one genre. Marking it as M/M romance isn't accurate as it is a story about a bond of friendship as well as love... which just happens to be about men together. The author uses a very engaging style with characters that are both likeable and flawed. Without giving away major plot-points, the mid-section of the novel will surprise and shock but it will also make you stop and think about similar relationships you have heard of within heterosexual couples. Love, like so many other emotions, doesn't know gender, nor does it always prove rational or safe. Lichen Craig has developed a story that makes you think, without judging, and that is the mark of a gifted writer."

From prize-winning writer Erasmo Guerra 5/5 stars:"I read this novel at the beginning of 2012. Now, as we come to the final days of the year, I have to say that of all the characters I met in the books I read later, my thoughts keep returning to these men and their "Gentlemen's Game."

From Amazon: "...It invokes strong feelings from us, it makes us think deeply and I believe that is the intention.
As a matter of fact, this story was probably closer to real life than a vast percentage of the books I have read in this genre and for that, I am thankful. Thank you Lichen, for dragging me out of my sugar coated reverie and giving me a good dose of brain starter."

From Amazon 5/5: "I bought this book a few days ago upon the recommendation of a friend and I am glad I did. This is a phenomenal read! The characters are well fleshed out and the plot is unique and thought-provoking. It draws you in from the very beginning and doesn't let go until long after the story is over."

From Amazon 4/5: "This book was a surprise for me. I found it very enjoyable. I felt the characters were likable, engaging. It handled the subject of rape in a sensitive, and real manner."

From Amazon 5/5: "The book weaves a tapestry of love, lust, highs and lows in the lives of four men, their relationships entangled in more ways than one. Through the openness of their relationships, it shows their bonds are strong, yet pushed to the breaking point. It leaves you wanting more."

AND. . . Read Nan Hawthorne's new review of Gentlemen's Game at the GLBT Bookshelf!

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Me!

I always appreciate feedback, whether about the book, the sample chapter, or the blog. Feel free to email me at
lichencraig@yahoo.com.